February 23, 2012

This imbalanced political landscape is not just restricted to the Voting Rights Act. The Republican Party is basically the party of white America, but of course such an entity as "white America" cannot be acknowledged in mainstream outlets (except of course as a source of some evil). A Republican legislator cannot complain that his constituents are being forced to move because their schools are becoming disabled by excessive numbers of non-English speakers or poorly behaved minorities. So instead he must complain about "illegal" immigration in the vaguest of terms and express displeasure with the failure of schools by blaming teacher-unions (bastions of anti-Republican rhetoric). A Democrat, on the other hand, can freely rile up his constituents by denouncing "discrimination" and favoritism, regardless of the facts.

Similarly, any Democrat politician, black or white, can make unlimited hay over alleged racial profiling among the police or "institutional racism" in the law enforcement. But no Republican politician would dare court white voters by defending the police, pointing out, for example, the disproportionately high levels of criminal behavior in the black community.

To be precise, Republican politicians are free to praise the police in general terms, but not to defend them in specific terms, such as in response to Justice Department racial profiling jihads, as in Maricopa County today. You can't say, "The reason the cops stop more blacks and Hispanics is because blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be criminals."

... The essence of this asymmetry in political combat is that Democrats are free to rabble-rouse and demagogue their positions without penalty - indeed, often with great showers of media attention for doing so - while Republicans must rouse their constituents only obliquely through proxies - religious faith, gun rights, opposition to gay marriage, and of course "No New Taxes". Even then, we often hear pundits denounce the "Three G's" - Gays, Guns and Gods - so even their proxies are derided.

But this leads to dumb policies - or at least failure to enact sensible policies. We can't have sensible gun laws, because Republicans have to prove that they sympathize with white-Americans' anxiety over the baneful impacts of minorities on their neighborhoods not by addressing that issue directly but by supporting unrestricted gun rights.

Gun control in the later 20th Century was a long war between whites in less dense parts of the country and whites in more dense parts of the country. Rural whites, rationally, considered gun ownership to be a good form of self-defense in areas where police response times were slow, the chance of accidentally plugging a bystander were low, and they had practice with guns for hunting. (In contrast, look at how vulnerable unarmed rural people in gun controlled England are to urban criminals' home invasions.)

Metropolitan whites, rationally, felt that the cops getting guns out of the hands of minorities was a better goal, but they didn't have any acceptable way to express this in public, so their arguments were generally couched in terms of the pressing need to disarm those vicious white Republicans in the hinterlands before they kill us all (see Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine for the classic expression of this ludicrous, but highly respectable, view).

In New York City, capital of both liberalism for American and pragmatism for New Yorkers, gun control actually did work pretty well in the 1990s. Under Giuliani and the smart, effective Bratton, the NYPD put a huge number of young black men in jail for packing heat. There were complaints, but NYC voters haven't elected the Democratic nominee mayor in the five elections since. But who even understands what happened in NYC? It's hard to remember stuff if you aren't allowed a vocabulary and syntax that helps you categorize What Just Happened.

Gay marriage is stupid - but the real problem is the insidious "Diversity" mentality that so offends the white middle class, but instead of fighting that, Republicans must single out Gay marriage (and even that fight is being rapidly lost). And Religion leads to unnecessary constitutional battles, while it is just a proxy of course for the desire of white Americans to keep America the way it is - not a banana republic, not a dysfunctional, balkanized economic zone, as it is on its way to becoming.

Right.

The problem is that when your enemies control the vocabulary of public discourse, it's hard to maintain a sophisticated private understanding of what is going on. Thus, the GOP lacks a brain trust of realists who determine strategy. It's fun to assume that, like in the Big Reveals at the end of 1984 and Brave New World, that their is an Inner Party of cold-eyed realists who understand all, but there's negligible evidence for this.

For example, here are a number of high life priorities for vast numbers of Republican-leaning, conservative-minded voters:

-- They want to be able to continue to live in their suburban communities where they've put down roots without being driven by demographic change to the exurbs.

-- They want to be able to send all their children to the local public school, which will be culturally dominated by the children of people like themselves

-- They want their children to be able to get into State U.

Is this too much to ask?

But, what would happen to a conservative politician who outlined these goals and endorsed policies for achieving them?

Instead, we get "conservative" politicians advocating crackpot radical ideas because they aren't supposed to advocate for what their constituents really want.

As a related point, I've put a lot of my faith in Romney as somebody who understands these things you can't mention, but is smart enough not to step in a turd along the way to the nomination. It's sad that we have to have election by dog whistle these days.

Derb recently talked about the possibility that the US elites could suddenly become truly, viscously racist. It's unfortunately not hard to see how that could happen as more and more people can't deny what's going on in America these days. Without the vocabulary Steve talks about the truth about diversity will seem like a revelation to somebody who had never had any crimethought before, and they may not think there is the possibility of a rational policy response.

It's easy to see this monopoly of the vocabulary in the Bishops' statements on the HHS mandate. It is all in the language of "rights" such as the right to religious freedom. The debate is focused 100% on procedural grounds rather than *gasp* attempting to make any universal truth claims.When even the Catholic Church is afraid to make statements of universal truths in the public square and must hide behind "minority rights", we are in trouble as a society.

The problem is that when your enemies control the vocabulary of public discourse, it's hard to maintain a sophisticated private understanding of what is going on.

This is one way in which pervasive Jewish influence works powerfully against white interests. They're so eager to prevent "the next Hitler" they nip every promising political development in the bud -- actually, even before the bud.

It's really not a stretch to say that the difference between the average white and the average Jew is the average Jew is informed about his enemies; the average white is informed about his enemies by Jews.

Where does the GOP's abortion stance fit in that model? If it was all code for white power, you'd think they'd be in favor of subsidized abortion for all.

I read the first few chapters of Churchill's Malakand pass detailing his time in the army in Afghanistan. Definitely not PC. He's just brutal in his descriptions of the natives and islam. How did we go from that to this in a hundred years?

Steve's original post about the gun control "cryptic racial angle" was a great one, back during the Bitter Clingers brouhaha, which I thought of again at New Year's when the mother in Oklahoma City blasted an intruder through the trailer door (apparently OKC is so vast that police response times are indeed an issue). The two GMA hosts were not tsk-tsking about it at all--a pretty self-contained human interest story in fact--but the nutroots were in rote crazed mode about the "harmful symbolism" inhering.

Then later a hip-hop site was posting videos of blacks beating up a weaker black in Atlanta. Once Matt Drudge promo'd it the concealed carry comments materialized tout suite. Of course, instantly followed by other web surfers crying out against "vigilantism." I was curious if Jim Goad would comment on that but it turned out to be routine vibrant news. Politicians watch this strife from afar, probably only drawing the most shallow and expedient conclusions.

Steve, Why the persistant misconception that the Republicans are the 'white' party? - When all the evidence over the years tells us otherwise?Basically, the Republicans are the party of big business, the neocons,lunatic fundamentalists,zionists,Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, the immigrationists, the free traders, the 1%, the people who've looted America and left the dumb white dupes stupid enough to vote for them sitting on sidewalks with suitcases, whilst off-shoring all the wealth for themselves. In fact if you study actual recorded historical facts rather instead of rhetoric you will find that 'amnesties', affirmative action, mass immigration, minority mortgage disasters etc all occurred under Republican administrations.

It is about 'double standard rights.' When you are a minority you tacitly are allowed 'double standard rights.' As a minority you are allowed to notice race and demographic characteristics and talk about them endlessly in the public forum. "White privilege" "Anglos treating us unfairly", blah blah blah, and it gets printed and spread around. But Whites and Anglos cannot discuss race at all or even notice race. Everyone is simply a Colorless Blob Human to whites.Minorities however can notice and discuss any white characteristices. This puts whites at an extreme disadvantage because as Brooke Shields once said in some movie "To analyze is to paralyze." Whites are constantly analyzed and persistently paralyzed publicly.

But the odd thing about 'double standard rights' is when whites are a minority in a region or a zipcode, they do not get double standard rights. What's up with that?

Chief Seattle: Where does the GOP's abortion stance fit in that model? If it was all code for white power, you'd think they'd be in favor of subsidized abortion for all.

I think the vast majority of whites find the idea of limiting the population of minorities via abortion distasteful. The abortion battles are all about behavior. Liberals think everyone should have the right to have sex with whomever they want whenever they want, and abortion is a way to empower that right. Conservatives believe that sexual behavior should be constrained, and that abortion is (an extreme) tool to avoid responsible reproductive behavior.

Basically, the Republicans are the party of big business, the neocons,lunatic fundamentalists,zionists...

Yes, there is the age-old business vs. labor battle, but pro-business Republicans have a proven record of siphoning off many workers from Democrats by using wedge issues. It would be a lot easier if they could just come out and say what they really mean. As for neocons, it's a good question how they would react.

And I wouldn't argue that overtly racial politics is preferred - that doesn't seem very pleasant to me. But the press giving an absolute free-pass to every minority's racial grievance while the obvious counter-arguments are never allowed to see the light of day erodes our discourse.

We have a situation right now where Pat Buchannan is banned from TV while Al Sharpton has his own show.

A small note for the sake of accuracy: rural England (& Wales) still has a lot of guns - shotguns and rifles are licensed and despite some recent rampages featuring these legally held firearms (such as one in Cumbria by a taxi driver leaving a dozen dead) no prominent politician has suggested banning ownership. The 1996 Dunblane massacre led to the outlawing of revolvers and automatics which of course still remain in the hands of outlaws (predominantly ethnic & living in the cities). Even in suburban Surrey, my next door neighbour had legitimate, licensed shotguns for years. Most British (especially upper middle class graduate professionals) find firearms frightening and regard the American love of guns with an attitude of mingled superiority, disbelief, amusement and alarm; however, a substantial part of the population still own & use them. The government, ,in the wake of recent wars, has even proposed introducing army/navy cadet supervised rifle training to state schools.

"It's fun to assume that, like in the Big Reveals at the end of 1984 and Brave New World, that their is an Inner Party of cold-eyed realists who understand all, but there's negligible evidence for this."

"The essence of this asymmetry in political combat is that Democrats are free to rabble-rouse and demagogue their positions without penalty - indeed, often with great showers of media attention for doing so - while Republicans must rouse their constituents only obliquely through proxies."

There is a lot of truth to this but not entirely. Liberals and minorities also use a lot of 'proxies'. For example, Wars for Israel are sold as 'War on Terror'. Israeli aggressiveness is sold as 'defend Israel from new Hitler'. Blacks don't defend affirmative action in the name of black power but in the name of 'equality' and 'justice'. Hispanics support illegal immigration in the name of 'diversity', not Mexican Power. Gays push 'gay marriage' as 'marriage equality'. And entitlements are sold as 'positive rights'.

Asymmetric Political Warfare owes largely to colleges, media, and entertainment being controlled by liberals, many of them Jews. If 80% of Jews were conservative, America would be a very different country. Imagine all that media power, intellectual power, entertainment power, academic power, etc on the side of the Right.

Of course, another possible interperetation, Steve, is that the Republican party elite is as hostile to us and our interests as the Democratic party elite is. They don't represent us because they don't want to.

You're right about guns and race, but I do think a lot of Christians actually want a Christian. The country's much more religious than, say, France. Why would a politician crack down on gays to say he's going to crack down on blacks? There really is a movement to recognize homosexuality as normal, and I can understand why Christians are upset by it--it's in the Bible, after all. (The rules in the Pentateuch are even nastier, but most Jews ignore their religion these days.)

"But the odd thing about 'double standard rights' is when whites are a minority in a region or a zipcode, they do not get double standard rights. What's up with that?"

Not to say that it isn't the usual double standard wrt whites; but it might partly be that that minority is relatively rich. The poor whites have retreated to the far suburbs or to the country or, in the case of DC, to West Virginia.Robert Hume

Why the persistant misconception that the Democrats are the 'black' party? - When all the evidence over the years tells us otherwise?Basically, the Democrats are the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Hollywood, Wall Street, Big Business, the neocons, Robert Byrd, the immigrationists, the free traders, the 1%, the people who've looted America and left the dumb black dupes stupid enough to vote for them sitting in ghettos, whilst off-shoring all the wealth for themselves.In fact if you study actual recorded historical facts rather instead of rhetoric you will find that slavery, NAFTA, and welfare reform all occurred under Democratic administrations.

LOL!

You don't get it, Mr. Can't-Even-Think-Up-A-Handle, do you?

Republicans may be post-American Looters, but they're OUR post-American Looters.

Republicans could do a lot better job of messaging the things you describe. The liberal media will call them racist and sexist no matter what - it's time to lay it on the line and at least call their bluff.

Decent Americans want their schools to have well-behaved kids, their neighborhoods to be crime free and clean, their work to benefit them and not those who don't mind living off them."

And the left will simply reply that phrases like "decent" and "well-behaved" are code for "white" while phrases like "living off them" are code for "non-white", specifically "black".

"Blunt, truthful. Easy to say, for me, for you, and for a pol. Just say it."

Right. Say it and risk charges of racism by the left.

It's not as easy you say.

Remember the white guy, David Howard, who said "niggardly" in a totally appropriate, non-racial context? He lost his job over that one word (rather, over the commplaint by a black at his use of that word). He got another job but had to grovel publicly about the lesson he'd learned.

The statement you characterize as blunt and truthful is a verbal minefield for anyone not on the left. Obama could say it and get away with it, as could other leftist pols. But just let anyone else try it.

We'd be so much better off if conservatives would stop underestimating the creative animosity of the left.

"The essence of this asymmetry in political combat is that Democrats are free to rabble-rouse and demagogue their positions without penalty"

this is the most salient point. democrats are free to attack. there is no cost to attack and there is no penalty for missed attacks. they can be dead wrong, and often are, but it's ok. there is no price to pay for being completely wrong when attacking republicans. republicans, however, can never afford to attack and miss. under the modern, democrat created rules of engagement, there is a huge penalty for republicans if they attack and miss once. heck, they can attack and HIT, and then pay the price, in the case of hate facts for instance.

democrats can cry foul a 1000 times at some euro-american men. 990 times they didn't murder, rape, assault, violate somebody's rights, or hate crime anybody. but that's ok. democrats can slink away at that point, with no penalty or damage. they'll get those whiteys eventually. keep attacking! A HA! they found the one rare guy who DOES fit their "european men are evil" narrative. scream victory! all out television media blitz!

so why not just attack again? keep attacking, over and over and over. it's free. eventually, you'll hit. and, then, THEN you've got the republicans.

there is a scene in heat, which perfectly encapsulates this situation. it's when jon voight and robert deniro are in a car and jon voight is showing him al pacino's police file, explaining who the detective is trying to catch him, and how the odds are dramatically in pacino's favor.

"This guy can hit or miss. You can't miss once."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loXfnZFMzM

this is how sports works now in the US as well. the african players can hit or miss. hits are remembered and celebrated and bring big contracts. misses are forgotten. the other players can't miss once. one miss is proof they suck and can't play.

expect lots of jeremy lin haters to use this basic principle now that he played one bad game. they will say he was exposed. "See, we told you." nevermind that they said this before every game. predicted before every game that he would have a bad game and prove them right that he can't play. attacking is free, no penalty for missing. score one hit, claim victory.

the term i've been using is "colorless identityless units". this is how europeans are supposed to see all humans according to liberals. certainly most important though is that europeans see themselves that way.

this is also how economists treat humans in their models. as interchangeable economic units with no differences. though in that instance it is not politically motivated.

imagine physicists treating fundamental particles the same way. "They're all the same. Really it's all about particles in, particles out, temperature, distance. A particle is a particle. They all behave the same way."

Republicans aren't the "White Party." They are the party that the white middle class feels it has little option but to vote for. Republicans campaign on cultural issues, drop hints that they'll do something about them - control illegal immigration, restrict abortion, enact school choice, shrink the welfare state, end affirmative action, quotas and set-asides, whatever - but when was the last time they really did anything about them?

The one thing Republicans can be reliably counted on to do? Cut taxes for the rich.

The white middle class has no party. A big reason for that is that whites can't or won't talk or even think about why they choose to live where they do. Most whites don't vote on immigration issues. Most whites don't connect increased immigration to the shrinking number of neighborhoods where they could happily live. They're more likely to not live in a neighborhood because "the crime rate is high" or "the homes are run-down." They never connect it to mass immigration, and when they do they still don't make it a priority in the voting booth.

The big problem with white voters today? They're distracted. They focus on tangential issues, like abortion, or support for the war in Iraq, or school prayer, or "the economy," or God only knows what.

I thought the economic meltdown would end support for big government and bring a return to immigration sanity. It didn't, and until the economy crashes again (very soon) it won't.

@ " A Republican legislator cannot complain that his constituents are being forced to move because their schools are becoming disabled by excessive numbers of non-English speakers or poorly behaved minorities."

That's assuming he really has their interests at heart and is not merely using them. The interests of corporate America come first with most Republican legislators.

As a minority you are allowed to notice race and demographic characteristics and talk about them endlessly in the public forum.

I do notice a small but increasing amount of pushback, though. Like the teacher-of-the-year who told her obnoxious 8th grade student to "go back to Mexico." And even in my workplace when minorities start to whine they are likely to get a terse response from white co-workers.

I know a half-Jamaican/half-white girl who was raised in England, and who was complaining about how bad England was to minorities. With as innocent-sounding a voice as I could muster I asked her, "Why didn't you move to Jamaica, then?" She looked as if I'd just asked her to move to the moon.

I think there are strong angles here. The administration has backed itself into a corner if candidates are willing to actually stand up and speak.

(1) Asians can argue hard that affirmative action is racist against them.

(2) Re Affirmative Action: Can we finally have a colorblind society where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? Dividing people by race must stop. We want to represent a unified America, not a divided one.

(3) Re illegal immigration: Unfair to all of us, including immigrants and working class Americans, who are following the law.

(4) Re illegal immigration: Why does administration not feel it is proper to even follow the law in a supposed democracy?

(5) Hard critiques of total outlawing of gays and Muslim apostates and total lack of womens rights under Sharia law that Obama's administration helped establish in both Libya and Egypt. A huge step backwards for liberty of the very minorities he purports to protect.

(6) As in unfree China, administration astonishingly demands that government dictate who churches can have as their ministers, is rejected 9-0 by Supreme Court.

(7) Right to bear arms at dire risk, was barely preserved 5-4 with 4 activist justices rejecting the literal words of Constitution itself. One more liberal judicial appointment would be a disaster for the 2nd amendment.

Note Sotomayor dishonestly promised she would preserve right to bear arms in confirmation hearings, before voting oppositely.

One could make an exception for gun control, but as a reaction to black inner city violence it is largely a post-60s phenomenon that coincided with a massive spike in violent crime and semi-automatic gang warfare. It hasn't 'always' been about NAMs though and in Europe this explanation makes no sense historically.

"Where does the GOP's abortion stance fit in that model? If it was all code for white power, you'd think they'd be in favor of subsidized abortion for all. "

Exactly. Proof that the GOP is far from being the white party. The more religious portion of the GOP honestly believes that if troublesome minorities simply go to church (i guess they ignore the fact that they already do in large percentages, and it has little effect on behavior) then everything will magically right itself. Just look at all the weird evangelicals who tried to kidnap Haitian children after the earthquake. If the GOP were pro white, they wouldn't spend so much time on cable television railing about Margaret Sanger...As it stands, the GOP has two main factions: pro business, and pro religion.

Now the democrats are obviously more anti-white, but that doesn't mean Republicans are secretly pro white. Not most of them, at least.

"White privilege" "Anglos treating us unfairly", blah blah blah, and it gets printed and spread around. But Whites and Anglos cannot discuss race at all or even notice race. Everyone is simply a Colorless Blob Human to whites."

Agreed. One of the worst parts is that they can give us whites whatever names they want, and we never seem to protest! Like a few years ago all of the sudden I am being referred to as an "Anglo", because apparently that's what invading Mexicans call white Americans. I don't like the term Anglo...what was wrong with "white." The way I see it, it's just a sneaky term to allow some groups of whites to get away with special minority privileges, if they so choose.

"In contrast, look at how vulnerable unarmed rural people in gun controlled England are to urban criminals' home invasions."

I may have explained this already, but:

Rural home invasions in England are NOT by 'urban' criminals. They are mostly by (very) white Irish 'Travellers' - gypsy-lifestyle, very high rates of criminality, known as Pikeys - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikey

1. In the early 1970s, Big Media switched from generally favoring the Democratic Party to essentially defining the liberal agenda, with the Democrats piggy-backing on this agenda to hold onto office.

2. This happened because: a) Big Media had far more presence in front of voter eyeballs, in both news and entertainment, than a Democratic Party badly fractured by Vietnam and Civil Rights; b) Big Media was far more accustomed to pleasing and persuading readers-viewers-voters, since they make a living at this; c) Big Media was more unified in its view of how things should be than even Democratic politicians, who have to deal with different constituencies and with the consequences of dreamy policies.

3. For the next 20 or 30 years, Dissident Conservative Media, on radio and TV talk shows and in a few publications, devoted itself to opposing the idiocies of the Big Media-Democratic liberal agenda. This Dissident Conservative Media influenced but did not define the Republican Party’s own program.

4. During roughly the last ten years, Dissident Conservative Media has grown in presence and power and has begun to play the same role for Republicans as Big Media does for Democrats. And for much the same reasons. As media, it has far more daily contact with readers-viewers-voters than the shreds of the old Party organization and more power than even new grass-roots organizations like the Tea Party. As Media, it pleases for its daily bread and is skilled at persuading.

5. In its role of now defining the Republican Party and conservative agenda, Dissident Conservative Media is affected by some of the same factors that affect Big Media. Certain subjects are simply too unpleasant and difficult to speak about to a general audience, while retaining this audience and the revenue it brings in. These troublesome subjects include race, ethnicity and the transformation of even American whites into a slob-and-slut society.

Gun control is more complex than that Steve. Criminals that are Black and Hispanic, buying mostly illegal guns on the Black market as professional thugs, have an advantage when their targets (often White folks in contested areas or suburban places) are unarmed. Blacks and Hispanics, and White interest groups allied with them, want White victims unarmed and non-White criminals armed. Thus gun control/bans "work" for them to achieve this, as guns flow freely among the criminal groups. Various Eastern European guns being very cheap are favored.

Like the US Army non-coms forced to don fake breasts and pregnant bellies for "empathy training" for pregnant soldiers, humiliation is the key objective. Rich White people as much as non-Whites wish to see ordinary Whites humiliated and victimized. That's the whole point of the "new Aristocracy" and Bill Gates as much as the Kennedys is part of that movement.

Rudy was far less effective in cutting off the "gun market" in illegal firearms, more a temporary and politically unsustainable (because neither non-Whites nor rich Whites could stand it) incarceration of non-White criminals.

Let me add that blaming (once again) "the Jews" is stupid, because its not "the Jews" but the neo-Puritans. The same New England derived White elites who have loomed large in America (and Europe) for centuries.

You see the same thing over and over again -- being upset that your patrimony, the California or America that your father and his and your mother and hers left to you, is turned into Tijuana with McDonalds, makes you as Steve noted "the Wrong Kind of White Person."

A Hillbilly. A person without the wealth and power and status to be unconcerned about non-White dominance. THIS is why no White Identity movement has arisen anywhere in the West. Because it plays class and status cards, particularly against men in the mating market (I've always carefully concealed my views) and helps divide young White women (who generally benefit) against young White men (who generally don't, unless they are uber-Alpha).

White people have been deeply divided since at least the Reformation (and likely several hundred years before that considering the Albigensian Heresy). Steve talks about a "deep State" but the reality is a pathetic, broken state and elite, but a "deep culture" that is re-inforcing because both cultures "work" to some degree.

Being a neo-Puritan means investing in education, a few kids only, high future time orientation, assortative mating, damping down lust for good marriage prospects, purchasing land, and so on. Being a Hillbilly means moving around a lot, chaotic mating/reproduction, lots of kids, high personal violence, etc. Neo-Puritans have "won" because most people like Mark Twain would rather live in Connecticut than Hannibal Missouri. Even those born there. But what happens when Connecticut turns into Hannibal, only run by non-Whites to your detriment. Eventually, that "Greek Tragedy" in the current sense becomes reality.

"Why the persistant misconception that the Republicans are the 'white' party? - When all the evidence over the years tells us otherwise?Basically, the Republicans are the party of big business, the neocons,lunatic fundamentalists,zionists,Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, the immigrationists, the free traders, the 1%, the people who've looted America and left the dumb white dupes stupid enough to vote for them sitting on sidewalks with suitcases, whilst off-shoring all the wealth for themselves.In fact if you study actual recorded historical facts rather instead of rhetoric you will find that 'amnesties', affirmative action, mass immigration, minority mortgage disasters etc all occurred under Republican administrations."

I firmly believe that either party* could, with sufficient fortitude, execute a pivot and secure the vast bulk of American votes, by which I mean, the vast bulk of white votes.

The Republicans could announce that, after sixty years of defending the Republic from godless Communism, it was time to "Come home, America" and, in the words of Merle Haggard, "let's rebuild America first."

The Democrats could announce that, given the historic breakthroughs they have achieved in terms of equal and civil rights, it was time to return to their traditional focus on ensuring that the working man in America could catch "A Fair Break" or some such.

White Americans---or, as the dotgov would have it, "non-Hispanic whites" remain close to a supermajority of American citizens to this day, and I firmly believe that either party could, if it wished to, execute a grand strategy that would lock up those votes for three or four presidential terms. (In other words, for a lifetime, in politics.)

The Republicans could bear in mind the famous saying of Jimmy "the Fix" Baker about the Jews. "Bless those little lambs, but they don't vote for us anyway."

The Democrats could wrap themselves in the mantle of Joe Frickin' Hill. Sell the "hard working man looking for a fair day's wage."

And I could run naked into the mayor's office, high on meth, with a feather in my bum, but I really don't see it happening.

* Let us face facts: given the institutional safeguards present in our system, a third party is at best a loon's chance, it's tilting at windmills all the way.

defines most of today's built-up reality, "what do you mean there are no nazis in sweden, and what do you mean that there are no girls with dragon tattoos who can kick nazi-ass, be expert hacker and fulfill all my nerdish fantasies?"

The GOP represents the 1%. Because they don't represent the broad interests of their voters but need their votes they require single issues that don't effect the 1%'s interests to rouse foot-soldiers come election time e.g. gun control, abortion, religion etc.

The primaries are showing how it's not working like it used to.

."This will get past the PC censors"

No it won't. While the PC censor are accepted as the moral judge they can just change the rules. What will work is destroying the moral authority of the PC censors so people no longer accept their censorship.

That means attacking their double-standards...over and over and over...until white people realise they're just anti-white racists in disguise and start to ignore them.

For example, here are a number of high life priorities for vast numbers of Republican-leaning, conservative-minded voters:

Note that these are basically the same high life priorities for many elite liberal whites who vote Democratic. They prioritize them all the same, and are able to achieve these priorities, all while pretending not to prioritize them. In other words, hypocrisy and self-deception are being selected for.

Instead, we get "conservative" politicians advocating crackpot radical ideas because they aren't supposed to advocate for what their constituents really want.

Right. It's awkward and clumsy because they are less good at hypocrisy, deception, self-deception, etc.

"Most British (especially upper middle class graduate professionals) find firearms frightening and regard the American love of guns with an attitude of mingled superiority, disbelief, amusement and alarm..."

Most Americans I know (especially upper middle class graduate professionals) find rioting frightening and regard the British willingness to let their vibrant underclass riot, loot and even kill with an attitude of mingled superiority, disbelief, amusement and alarm.

Karl Rove figured this issue was a way to get the activists involved. It made a big difference in Ohio. The cool, more indifferent voters don't get that involved, for some reason.

Uh, Carol, anti-abortion politics did not get started with Karl Rove. Political activism in this area started around, oh, 1973, and became identified with the Republican party by the 1980s (and especially after the Clinton election.)

By the way, I know this will sound naive on iSteve and all, but when a large number of people politically protest against abortion, it may not be so much that they are using it as a proxy issue but that they really don't like abortion. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

Let me add that blaming (once again) "the Jews" is stupid, because its not "the Jews" but the neo-Puritans. The same New England derived White elites who have loomed large in America (and Europe) for centuries.

Is that the same "New England derived White elite" that did not monopolize (and in fact did not manage to control any of) this country's mass media during the decades preceding and following the 1960s revolution that visited so much destruction on this country?

Is that the same "New England derived White elite" that initially supported and never thereafter argued for repeal of the 1924 immigration restrictions?

Is that the same "New England derived White elite" that did not immediately take control of the bureaucracy created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and exempt their own race or religion from the application of Title VII of the Act?

I'm late to this conversation, but willing to throw out some comments in hope that perhaps others are still following the comments.

What is this about Republicans being the party of "white America?" Obama won 43% of white voters, Kerry won 41%, and even in the landslide GOP victory of 2010 the Democratic Party managed to pull together 37% from white voters for their House candidates.

If Republicans were consistently winning almost 40% of the non-white vote (in today's culture war politics, not previous periods), except in blowout years, I think they'd be well positioned to argue that they were not just a bunch of conservative white Christians.

But they don't. They only win with conservative white Christians. So they can be called the party of conservative white Christians, but how are they the party of white America?

The majority of white Americans vote Republican, but there are large portions of white America where Democrats are significant, if not competitive.

Some of the whitest states lean Democratic, including Vermont, or are at least more competitive than you'd expect if Republicans won white America (Iowa, New Hampshire).

You could compare this to Cracker Barrel, the popular country cuisine restaurant that the Washington Post used as a symbol of conservative America. Cracker Barrel's customers is probably overwhelmingly white, like the Republican Party, but a significant number of whites would never dream of going there, for a host of reasons (vegetarianism, health consciousness, elitism, etc.)

My point is to agree with the first Anonymous comment, that a more direct and blunt appeal would benefit the GOP. At this time, the GOP depends too heavily on social conservatism and prejudice that alienates a good deal of white America.

Gun control is the liberal way of assuaging liberal whites about their fear of black criminals. Gun control is only politically popular where there are lots of liberals near lots of blacks. Liberal Vermont isn't anti-gun, because they have no blacks to be scared of. Conservative Alabama is pro-gun, because they have no liberals to be scared of all their blacks. Big cities (outside of Texas) are anti-gun because there are lots of liberals, and lots of blacks.

The slow restoration of the Second Amendment is a result of the decline of the big Northeastern cities and the increased suburbanization of America. All the activism in the world wouldn't have led to where we are without the demographic change.

----Let us face facts: given the institutional safeguards present in our system, a third party is at best a loon's chance, it's tilting at windmills all the way.-----

Which is a very good reason for working against the current electoral system. It has been observed in many places, and in many elections, that an electoral system such as the one used by the USA will lead to a 2-party system. That observation even has a name - Duverger´s law.

However, if just about any other electoral system would be in use, then there would be many viable parties, and identity politics on the part of the ethnic majority becomes possible. Look at many of the European countries with proportional elections - most of them have immigrantion restrictionist, white-centered parties in their parliaments - despite the fact that MSM in those countries is overwhelmingly against those parties.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.